adamz said:
just go out and try to shoot animals picture with 51 points - 11 manual works much better than that, after all it's faster to recompose than to play with the round AF switch - not to mention that AF works best when it's in the center position, and with long teles (above 300mm) recomposing is just a fraction of couple mm.

I have never EVER switched to 11-point AF! I've shot everything using all 51 points—people, animals, sports, you name it. I don't know how you guys are doing it, but it works well enough for me. What I do is put my subject under the active focus point, whatever that may be, and start focusing. While the camera focuses I change the active focus point to whichever direction I want it to go and change composition accordingly. Simple, effective, quick, and it works. Maybe your fingers just are nimble enough :^P

alphanikonrex said:
I choose manually from the 51! I don't see what the big deal is, it's fast enough even for moving subjects.

I have no idea how you do that with AF-C though. My camera's in AF-C most of the time, so I can't just do the recompose trick.

just go out and try to shoot animals picture with 51 points - 11 manual works much better than that, after all it's faster to recompose than to play with the round AF switch - not to mention that AF works best when it's in the center position, and with long teles (above 300mm) recomposing is just a fraction of couple mm.

LOL, it sounds so much simpler on the F4! Actually that's not a problem of mine, since the 51 AF points give plenty of coverage. I may have to do something about it though if I got a camera with less coverage.

jonnyapple said:
Alpha, you should try setting custom setting a3 to 51 point (3d-tracking). That will let you recompose in AF-C and it will follow what you start it on. It's like magic.

AF-C is designed to be used in conjunction with the AF-L button, I don't remember on the D300 if it shares with AE-L, or is a separate thing. I know on my F4 I have seperate AE-L and AF-L buttons on the front, and I can rotate the AF-L button's collar to change its function to both AF-L and AE-L so I can do both things with one press.

On the D300 there's a menu setting to change how that button behaves. The collar would be nice.

AF-C is designed to be used in conjunction with the AF-L button, I don't remember on the D300 if it shares with AE-L, or is a separate thing. I know on my F4 I have seperate AE-L and AF-L buttons on the front, and I can rotate the AF-L button's collar to change its function to both AF-L and AE-L so I can do both things with one press.

NSXType-R said:
Well with 51, some people like choosing their focus points manually. It's much more manageable with 11.

I choose manually from the 51! I don't see what the big deal is, it's fast enough even for moving subjects.

NSXType-R said:
Yeah, pretty much I recompose with the autofocus point in focus, then shift the camera back where I want it. A roundabout way to do it. It would annoy me with something moving/uncontrollable though.

I have no idea how you do that with AF-C though. My camera's in AF-C most of the time, so I can't just do the recompose trick.

...take a look at some zeiss glass for nikon, as they render excellent, 3d like scenes. I would go for:
- Zeiss Distagon 3.5/18mm - LINK - as the wide lens
- Zeiss Makro Plannar 2/100mm - LINK - as a moderate tele

Thanks!

I did consider getting zeiss when I was shopping for my 85/1.4 back in the day. I ultimately didn't like the fact that it was ONLY manual focus. I do hear they are making new zeiss lenses with auto focus motors, that will be interesting.

Willis said:
Welcome NG6 - If street photography is going to be your game, I'd lean toward grabbing the 70-200. The thing about PJ work is that you never know quite what its going to throw at you. You need, therefore, to be as flexible as you can be, which means zooms will probably serve you better than primes (especially if you only have one body).

Don't worry about the FoZoom issue. On DX, I was able to fill a frame with my little office plant, which is a good bit smaller than a human head.

The new 70-200 is sharp enough to replace all of the primes in the range it covers, and the VR is effective enough that it makes up for some of the speed you will loose (DOF considerations aside). It's really quite amazing to be able to shoot hand held at 1/6-1/8 and still get sharp results. Go check out my thread on it if your curious.

Long term, I see you shooting with a D300 w/ your 35mm prime (BTW - go grab the newer 35 1.8. Its $200 and on DX its gorgeous), and a D700 with the 70-200... that's probably all the lens you will ever need if you can resist the temptation to become a wide angle junkie.

Thanks :)

I tried to pick up the lens today but unfortunately the place that had it shipped it to their other store in DC (...even though it had my name on it... :/ ) The nice thing about it though is they knocked off $115 off the lens and I get to pick it up tomorrow.

As for the primes, I had thought at one point to steer away from it, constantly swapping lenses is kind of ehh but I love how fast they are. If the new generation of lenses end up being sharper and they're zooms, I might have to reconsider swapping my primes out.

My setup right now is that I have the 85/1.4 always attached to the body and ready to go is the 50 and 35. My ideal setup? I'd say a D700 (or newer) with a 24-70/2.8 and another D700 with the 70-200/2.8 I plan on picking up tomorrow. I don't know if I'd sell all my primes, I do love my 85/1.4 a lot. I doubt I'd end up going to the D3 series... I think.

I've always been a fan of working lighter with gear, hopefully this will be a step towards it. But as it stands, if I get the 24-70 & 70-200 & say a 14-24, I'd have all the range but 3-5x the weight then if I had prime equivalents wouldn't I?

As for wide, I considered it for a while but overall I'd only use it for maybe 1% of my photos I take. I still have my money so I guess I'm trying to rationalize it all.

Never done sports before. I can see how better coverage would be helpful though. I'd probably opt for the D300s over the D700 for sports anyway on account of the faster frame rate and better reach. D700 might be better for night games & basketball though. Gym's are notoriously hard to shoot in.

Besides, even if your not shooting when the subjects way off center, who wouldn't mind focus tracking?

Same for the DX thing. I say they still let all the focus points work so you can track your subject even if it leaves the DX frame, just not let you shoot when the active focus point is outside of the DX frame.

I agree with you as far as my personal shooting goes, willis, but have you tried the D300 in 3D tracking mode (custom setting a3)? It's actually a thin slice of technological heaven. I used it to focus and recompose portraits (you focus on the eye and watch as the focus spot magically follows the eye while you're recomposing), but it will follow things like athletes because it locks on to a certain pattern of colors it gets from the metering CCD. I wouldn't call it perfect, but it's fast and it's better than me for moving things. I'm sure no D3/D3s users shooting sports would complain if they had more of the frame for 3D tracking.

You may be right about problems with the DX crop. If that's true, hopefully they can work that out and get full frame coverage on their next releases.

I wonder if they have to do it that way to make it work in DX Crop mode. Seems like if you had sensors outside of the DX range, then thy might not be able to shut them off when a DX lens is attached.

Either way, the center is where you want them. I don't want to be taking pictures where the focus is way outside the center of the frame.... at least not most of the time. Of course you can always focus and recompose, but who wants to do that?